th
Proceedings of the 34 International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
AN INTEGRATED NUMERICAL APPROACH TO DESIGN OFFSHORE PIPELINES
SUSCEPTIBLE TO LATERAL BUCKLING
F. Van den Abeele F. Boël
Fugro GeoConsulting Fugro GeoConsulting
Brussels, Belgium Brussels, Belgium
ABSTRACT
Lateral buckling is a global response to excessive compressive
axial force due to thermal and internal pressure loads which
when combined, exceeds the initiating Euler Buckling force
and overcomes the lateral friction force reacting against a
pipeline laid on the seabed.
According to DNV-RP-F110, the integrity of a pipeline
susceptible to buckling can be assured by either restraining the
pipeline, thus sustaining large axial compressive forces, or
releasing them through a combination of pipeline
displacements; lateral buckles. Buckling may be rogue in nature
or engineered at predetermined locations, either of which must
demonstrate compliance to DNV OS F101. Engineered lateral
buckles are a cost effective way to manage for example HP/HT
pipelines as opposed to the construction of restraint designs.
However, uncertainty in the initial buckle formation process
and buckle behaviour may reduce design reliability; resulting in
an increased level of redundancy in a buckle management
system.
This paper presents the vision of an engineering tool aimed at
providing an integrated single model environment which
enables straightforward engineering analysis, with application
to all phases of design, and providing support to operations.
Verification of buckling forces and post-buckling
configurations is undertaken through comparison with Hobbs
and Kerr analytical models and validated against ABAQUS.
INTRODUCTION
As most ‘easy’ oil and gas reservoirs have been developed,
generally in shallow waters, offshore oil and gas installations
move into more remote locations, e.g. deeper waters and
challenging geology.
OMAE2015
May 31 – June 5, 2015, St. John’s, Canada
OMAE2015- 42119
D. Hayes D. Scales
Atteris Pty Ltd Atteris Pty Ltd
Perth, Australia Perth, Australia
Hence, there is an increased demand to access high pressure
(HP) and high temperature (HT) formations. As a consequence,
the loading. As a consequence the loading exerted on pipelines
and flowlines is increased.
In this paper, an engineering tool is presented based on a one
model methodology ensuring that development from an early
concept design through Front End Engineering Design (FEED),
detailed design and into the operations phase is undertaken in a
congruent and concise manner. Additionally, utilisation of one
model throughout the design lifecycle will ensure that model
development time is minimised and engineering is streamlined
ensuring that Operators receive an assured design within an
economical timeframe. Furthermore, by utilizing a single
engineering tool throughout the design and operation stages,
any assumptions that have been made within the design stage
(aimed at minimizing CAPEX) are transferred to the operations
team and can be incorporated within their ongoing strategies to
minimize OPEX.
Assurance of the engineering tool is provided through
verification against both analytical models and ABAQUS
numerical models. Limitations within the numerical engine
behind the finite element analysis (FEA) are identified. As
these limitations can impact some specific lateral buckling
scenarios, they will be addressed within future releases of the
engineering tool.
LATERAL BUCKLING FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES
HP/HT pipelines under operation are exposed to increased
compressive axial force due to the thermal and internal pressure
loads, when these loads are combined and they exceed the
initiating Euler Buckling force and overcome the lateral
frictional restraint from the seabed then a lateral buckle will
form [1-2].
1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Lateral Buckling is a global pipeline response resulting in large
lateral displacements and corresponding stresses and strains
within the pipeline and as such to ensure integrity of the overall
pipeline system needs to be considered within the design phase
and managed if necessary.
The earlier that lateral buckling can be identified as a risk and a
Buckle Management System (BMS) defined then the lower to
the overall cost of ownership will be for the Operator. Thus, the
design procedure should ensure that rapid analysis of a
multitude of options is undertaken to determine the critical
parameters within the lateral buckling process and any resulting
Buckle Management System.
Furthermore, if a Buckle Management System is required, then
it dictates early investigation and definition to allow non-
critical path procurement and contracting of the necessary
equipment and installation method. The one model approach
will also allow efficient post start-up verification of the BMS
and allow operations to have confidence in the delivered
solution.
BUCKLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
If the pipeline to be installed is susceptible to lateral buckling
and it is determined that rogue buckling is unacceptable then a
BMS is required to ensure compliance of the pipeline system
with the relevant standards (for instance DNV-OS-F101 [3] or
DNV-RP-F110 [4]). BMSs take two main forms [4]:
1. Restraining
2. Initiating
Restraining the pipeline will ensure that no lateral buckles can
form and that the axial compressive forces are maintained
within the pipeline. The design of restraining BMSs entails
ensuring that both lateral and upheaval buckling will be
prevented within all design conditions.
Initiating BMSs work by ensuring lateral buckles are formed at
prescribed locations along the pipeline such that the stresses
and strains induced within the lateral buckles comply with code
requirements. Therefore, the design procedure needs to ensure
that the installed buckle initiators are spaced such that buckles
form within acceptable limits due to the high probability of a
sufficient number of buckles forming at prescribed buckle sites.
Current design methodologies will be briefly presented and
discussed in the next section of this paper.
Rock Dumping
Rock dumping of a pipeline is a technique used for restraining
the pipeline either along its entirety or within smaller sections
in which lateral buckling is deemed unacceptable.
Restraining of the pipeline requires the construction of a
suitable rock berm which is designed to resist both pipeline
upheaval and lateral buckling. In addition, the rock is also
required to be self-stable during hydrodynamic events to
prevent degradation of the berm, thus reducing its capacity to
mitigate buckling. This aspect of the design will influence the
rock particle size, which in turn is influence by the availability
of rock material, and constraints dictated by the installation
vessel specification and installation technique.
Rock dumping along pipelines is a common construction
activity, although relatively expensive due to the requirement of
specific marine vessels. However, rock dumping is
predominately used for pipeline protection and/or stabilization.
Therefore, when used in combination with other functional
requirements such as these, this method for restraining the
pipeline will become more cost effective.
Snake Lay
Snake lay is the process of installing a pipeline on the seabed
with a predefined horizontal out of straightness (OOS) as
presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Shallow amplitude snake lay [5]
The induced horizontal OOS reduces the pipelines capacity to
resist lateral buckling as presented by Matheson et. al. [6], and
the reduced critical buckling force 𝑃𝑐𝑟 for a pipeline with
submerged weight 𝑊 in a bend radius 𝑅 under lateral soil
friction 𝜇𝐿𝑆 is given by
𝑃𝑐𝑟 = 𝜇𝐿𝑆 𝑊 𝑅 (1)
2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Snake lay relies on a defined level of lateral OOS to be
imposed on the pipeline as it is laid. It is therefore important
that pipeline installation lay tolerances are tightened at points of
defined OOS to ensure these are constructed. Should lay
tolerances not be tightened in the pipeline specification, there is
a risk that the OOS is not installed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that snake lay provides a global

definition for the lateral out-of-straightness. However, due to
pipeline installation tolerances at the location of buckle
initiators, localized OOS may be more severe than nominal
OOS considered during design (either lateral, vertical or
combined). Therefore, sensitivity of OOS should be considered
during the design phase to allow for increased curvature.

Seabed Sleepers Figure 3: Zero Radius Bend [5]

Sleepers are pipe joints that are installed perpendicular to the
pipeline and typically have a low friction surface applied to
them to reduce lateral friction forces.
A combination of the vertical OOS and low lateral resistance;
both from the low friction surface of the pipeline-sleeper
interface but also from the spanning section of the pipeline,
result in a reduced critical buckling force.
Due to the vertical OOS it is important that span effects either
side of the sleeper are accounted for within the design of the
individual buckle initiators.
Zero Radius Bend
Zero Radius Bends (ZRBs) are a variant of the sleeper option
by the addition of a lateral counteract for the pipeline to be
installed around thus allowing a smaller bend radius to be
achieved than that from soil restraint alone, i.e. snake lay.
Furthermore, by utilizing the sleeper and counteract, an OOS is
induced in both horizontal and vertical directions resulting in a
low critical buckling force.
The requirement to install the pipeline over the sleeper location
whilst also ensuring that it is installed around the counteract,
dictates the need of careful installation of the pipeline within
the vicinity of the ZRB. As a result, the lay rate at ZRBs is
typically reduced.
Sleepers with imposed lateral displacement
A more recent modification to the sleeper design is the use of a
sleeper with a lateral displacement ram installed. The pipeline
is installed over the sleeper with no requirement to install any
lateral OOS using pipelay vessel positioning. Once the pipeline
is installed, tooling is deployed to actively slide the pipeline
laterally to a predetermined level of OOS. The pipeline is then
restrained on the inside of the deflection and the tooling is
retrieved. This procedure would then be performed at all buckle
initiation sleepers prior to start-up.

Figure 2: Use of counteracts Figure 4: Sleeper with Imposed Lateral Displacement

3 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

CURRENT METHODOLOGIES
Analytical Approach
The main body of analytical work associated with lateral
buckling was produced by Kerr [7] and extended later by
Hobbs [1-2]. Kerr’s work was based on lateral buckling of
railway tracks induced by thermal loads and Hobbs extended
the methodology to pipelines including pipelines with restraints
The premise of Hobbs’ method is the use of a pipelines
effective axial force (EAF) and the corresponding critical
buckling force of the pipeline. If the EAF exceeds the critical
buckling force then a lateral buckle will theoretically occur. For
a fully restrained, closed-ended pipeline, the effective axial
force 𝐹𝑒 is the sum of the forces due to axial elongation,
internal and external pressure (including end effects) and the
temperature gradient Δ𝑇 [8]
𝐹𝑒 = 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑠 + (1 − 2𝜈)(𝑝𝑒 𝐴𝑒 − 𝑝𝑖 𝐴𝑖 ) − 𝐸𝐴 𝛼Δ𝑇 (2)
with 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑠 the residual lay tension and 𝛼 the coefficient of
thermal expansion for steel. If the ends of the pipeline are free
to move then the EAF at the end points is based on the axial
frictional resistance 𝜇𝑎𝑥 to movement until the EAF reaches the
fully constrained EAF at the virtual anchor point. The axial
frictional resistance from each end is given by
S𝑓𝑟 = 𝜇𝑎𝑥 𝑊 𝑥 (3)
where 𝑥 the is the axial distance from the free end. Figure 5
shows the EAF for a pipeline that reaches full constraint
between 0.4 ≤ 𝑥 ⁄𝐿 ≤ 0.6.
Figure 5: Effective axial force for fully constrained pipe [9]
Hobbs defined the critical buckling force based on the buckle
length given by
𝐴𝐸𝜇𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑊𝐿5
P0 = 𝑃 + 𝑘3 𝜇𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑊𝐿 [√1 + 𝑘2 − 1] (4)
(𝐸𝐼)2
where
𝐸𝐼
P = k1 (5)
𝐿2
is the reduced axial force within the buckle and 𝜇𝑙𝑎𝑡 is the
lateral friction factor. In addition, Hobbs [1-2] defines an
analytical solution for the post-buckle amplitude
𝜇𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑊 4
ŷ = k 4 𝐿 (6)
𝐸𝐼
In equations (4)-(6), 𝑘𝑖 (𝑖 = 1. .4) are the constant for lateral
buckling modes derived in [2].
More recently the HOTPIPE JIP and SAFEBUCK JIP have
established a number of analytical solutions for lateral buckling
and axial walking, which will be discussed further in the next
sections.
HOTPIPE and DNV-RP-F110
The HOTPIPE JIP was established by Statoil to develop a
guideline for the design of HP/HT pipelines and to increase the
overall knowledge surrounding the global buckling
phenomenon that had been observed at this time.
The HOTPIPE JIP was concerned with the generation of
simplified analysis procedures to allow the rapid analysis of the
post-buckling response of a pipeline for both single buckle
models and global (multiple) buckle models. Structural
reliability methods were utilised to assist in calibration of the
partial safety factors. Typically a Load Controlled (LC)
approach has been followed due to the primary focus of the JIP
being large diameter trunklines. Although the LC approach is
not strictly valid for lateral buckling, for large diameter
pipelines it is generally considered a more appropriate
methodology due to the large wavelength buckles which
typically form.
The outcomes of the HOTPIPE JIP were incorporated into the
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Recommended Practice for global
buckling in 2007 [4]. Currently DNV are updating the
Recommended Practice to incorporate outcomes from both
SAFEBUCK and industry learnings. This is due for release in
Q2 2015 [10].
4 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
VISION AND METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
In comparison to the through life project cost, engineering is a
relatively small proportion of the overall economics. However,
during the CAPEX phase of a project, delivery is fundamental
to its success. With changing global economics and increased
pressure to deliver solutions which are technically assured to be
safe and reliable, yet also reduce CAPEX, engineering budgets
are constantly under scrutiny. Therefore, increased efficiency
and minimization of effort is key to meeting project
expectations. Buckle Management Systems typically will also
require ongoing performance monitoring through life to ensure
integrity limits of the pipeline defined during design are not
exceeded. Invariably, there is also an engineering cost
associated with this phase too.
Application of the tool to on-bottom roughness and free span
analysis is demonstrated in [11-12]. Simulation of pipeline
walking due to thermal gradients and sloping seabeds has been
addressed in [13-14], and the prediction of susceptibility to
upheaval buckling is tackled in [15]. In this investigation at
hand, we want to illustrate how such a numerical analysis tool
can be used to predict lateral buckling, and design appropriate
mitigation measures, pursuing a one model approach. This does
avoid the need to implement different finite element models for
each purpose, e.g. installation, thermal expansion, free span
analysis or in-service buckling.
The simulation results, presented in this paper, are
benchmarked against analytical equations and finite element
analyses performed with the general purpose Abaqus software.

The partnership of CAPEX and OPEX project phases is also VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION
key to the transfer of design risk through to Operations for
thorough asset management. To this end, the drive for more For the validation and verification plan, seven scenarios of
efficient and robust engineering to reduce cost, without pipelines prone to lateral buckling have been identified. These
compromising safety and quality, has led to the vision of a one different scenarios are summarized in Table 1.
model engineering tool to be developed. The main advantage of
such an approach is that it can capture the actual stress state and
Table 1: Case Matrix
corresponding mechanical response of the offshore pipeline
during its entire design life: from the installation induced
stresses, over hydrotesting, subsequent heating and cooling, B.I. Lateral Sleeper
OD wt
Case Location OOS Height
hydrodynamic loading, and operational conditions that change [km] [m] [m]
[mm] [mm]
during the life of the hydrocarbon reservoir. 1 - - - 767.4 33.7
2 5 0.5 - 767.4 33.7
Engineering is an iterative process, which typically evolves 3 5 0.5 0.25 767.4 33.7
through the design phases as new or more detailed input data 4 5 0.5 0.5 767.4 33.7
becomes available. Hence, the ability to enhance design models 5 5 0.5 0.75 767.4 33.7
which reflect the phase of engineering (concept, FEED or 6 5 0.5 0.5 508.0 23.0
detailed design) right through to operations, is an attractive 7 5 0.5 0.5 324.0 15.0
prospect. Such a flexible and versatile one model approach
allows reducing the workload, as it limits the requirement for  The first case is a perfectly straight pipeline with a length
re-work or additional developments. This staggered modelling of 10 km, installed on a flat seabed in a water depth of 500
approach hence allows reducing the engineering budget and m. This base case scenario is introduced to confirm that the
compressing the corresponding project schedule. finite element models can correctly capture the unbuckled
effective axial force described by Hobbs [1-2].
Moreover, if this vision were to be realized, the gains in
efficiency could be traded for increased assessment efforts to  The second case is similar as the base case, but with an
improve certainty of the correct BMS method selection. Also, imposed lateral out of straightness of 0.5 m to trigger a
enhanced analysis enables to reduce the risks associated with lateral buckle.
the response of the BMS. Such analyses hence assist in
realizing increased asset availability and minimizing  In Cases 3-5, a seabed sleeper is introduced as a rigid
operational risks (e.g. costly remediation programs or loss of object on the seafloor, and a sensitivity analysis is
production due to a poorly designed BMS). performed to assess the influence of the sleeper height. For
the results, presented in this paper, the sleeper contact is
In this paper, the SAGE Profile software suite for offshore assumed to be frictionless.
pipeline analysis [9] is used to explore and implement the
proposed vision. This tool can be used to predict the  Both Case 6 and 7 are similar as Case 4, but with a
mechanical response of an offshore pipeline after installation, different pipeline (i.e. different outer diameter and wall
and during the subsequent operational phases. A comprehensive thickness).
overview of the engineering tool is given in [9].

5 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 Table 2: Pipeline Data RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Parameter Unit Value Figure 6 compares the effective axial force profile for both
End restraints [-] Free SAGE Profile 3D (SP3D) and Abaqus for Case 1, where a
Pipeline length [km] 10 straight pipeline on a perfectly flat seabed is filled with a hot
Water depth [m] 500 and pressurized fluid. The EAF profiles closely align, and
Steel grade [API] X65 reflect the state of a pressurized pipeline which does not buckle.
Young’s modulus [GPa] 207
Poisson Ratio [-] 0.3
Thermal coefficient [1/°C] 1.17E-05
SMYS [MPa] 450
SMTS [MPa] 535
Steel density [kg/m³] 7850
R.O.  [-] 1.30
R.O. N [-] 20.46
Coating thickness [mm] 2.5
Coating density [kg/m³] 900
Content density [kg/m³] 350
Axial friction [-] 0.7
Axial mobilization [mm] 5
Lateral friction [-] 0.7
Lateral mobilization [mm] 5
T [°C] 60
p = pi - pe [MPa] 30

The pipeline model is 10 km in length, and the common Figure 6: Effective axial force profile for unbuckled Case 1
pipeline data is shown below. The pipe is simulated by
discretizing the entire pipeline into sections of finite length, When introducing an out-of-straightness by imposing a lateral
where an element length of 4m has been selected. These displacement of 0.5 m at KP = 5 km, the pipeline does buckle
sections are represented by Bernoulli beam elements with 12 during the operational phase. In Figure 7, the effective axial
degrees of freedom, bounded at either side by nodes. The force at the apex is shown vs. the corresponding lateral
distributed mass of the pipe (including content and coatings) is displacement. The SP3D and Abaqus runs predict similar
lumped at these nodes. A similar model is implemented in results, and agree well with the (theoretical) Hobbs curve.
Abaqus, where PIPE31H elements have been used, which are
particularly suitable to model long, slender pipelines with a
thin-walled circular cross section. Orthotropic friction is
included in the contact algorithm to allow distinguishing
between axial and lateral friction.

All cases, presented in Table 1, were simulated with a transient

dynamic (explicit) solver, using an integrated numerical
approach:

1. First, the laydown process was simulated to capture

the stress distribution after the installation process.
2. Then, the lateral imperfection was introduced by
imposing a prescribed out-of-straightness and/or
introducing a sleeper as a frictionless, rigid cylinder on
the seabed.
3. Finally, the operational pressure and temperature Figure 7: EAF vs. lateral displacement at apex (Case 2)
profile are gradually ramped in.

6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

In Case 3, a seabed sleeper is introduced as a frictionless, rigid
body, in addition to the initial OOS of 0.5 m. The combination
of both lateral and vertical OOS triggers a mode three buckle,
as clearly shown in the post-buckling configuration of Figure 8.
Figure 8: Post-buckling configuration (Case 3)
Cases 4 and 5 provide a sensitivity analysis on the sleeper
height. Figure 9 demonstrates that the predicted curvature in the
vicinity of the buckle apex closely matches for both explicit
solvers used in this investigation.
Figure 9: Pipeline curvature (Case 4)
In Figure 10, the predicted post-buckle configuration is shown
for different sleeper heights, i.e. varying from 0 m (Case 2) up
to 0.75 m (Case 4). For each case, the prescribed lateral OOS
was fixed at 0.5 m. Whereas the configuration without seabed
sleeper gives rise to a mode 5 buckle, the presence of a seabed
sleeper tends to trigger a mode 3 buckle. Unsurprisingly, the
buckle amplitude is more pronounced for increasing sleeper
height.
Figure 10: Influence of sleeper height on buckle formation
Case 6 is similar to Case 4 (i.e. a sleeper height of 0.5 m with
an imposed lateral OOS of 0.5 m), but with a pipeline with
outer diameter OD = 508 mm and wall thickness wt = 23 mm.
A snapshot of the post-buckling configuration in Virtual Reality
rendering is provided in Figure 11, clearly indicating that this
configuration produces a mode 3 lateral buckle as well.
Figure 11: Post-buckling configuration (Case 6)
Cases 4, 6 and 7 allow comparing the influence of pipeline
diameter and wall thickness when the operational conditions
and the initial imperfections are fixed (i.e. a sleeper height of
0.5 m with an imposed lateral OOS of 0.5 m). For each
pipeline, the effective axial force profile is shown in Figure 12,
and compared to the corresponding critical force that would
produce a mode 3 buckle. While the ratio of diameter over wall
thickness is similar (𝐷 ⁄𝑡 ~ 22) for the selected pipelines, the
magnitude of the buckling force is significantly different. All
three scenarios give rise to an engineered lateral buckle.
7 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Figure 12: EAF profiles for different pipelines
The combined loading unity check for load controlled
conditions (LCC) as per DNV-OS-F101 [3] is shown in Figure
13. Calculation of LCC/DCC values, taking into account the
subsequent load patterns experienced by the pipeline (e.g.
installation, hydrotesting, hydrodynamic loading, operational
temperature and pressure profile, lateral buckle formation, …)
provide a means of evaluating the proposed BMS. This
endorses the strategy to pursue an integrated numerical
approach for the design of offshore pipelines which are
susceptible to lateral buckling.
Figure 13: Limit state (LCC) for buckled pipeline (Case 7)
The main limitation of the proposed engineering is the
constitutive material modelling of the pipeline steel, which is
currently limited to non-linear elasticity (e.g. Ramberg-Osgood
curve fit for strain hardening). As a result, the tool presented in
this paper can reflect the (non-elastic) hardening of the steel
material, although it fails to capture permanent deformation
when the operational temperature/pressure is removed. As this
limitations constrains the accuracy and predictive ability of the
tool for some specific lateral buckling scenarios, pipeline
plasticity will be addressed within future releases of the
engineering tool.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the vision of an engineering tool is presented,
aimed at providing an integrated single model environment
which enables straightforward engineering analysis, with
application to all phases of design, and providing support to
operations.
The main advantage of such an approach is that it can capture
the actual stress state and corresponding mechanical response
of the offshore pipeline during its entire design life: from the
installation induced stresses, over hydrotesting, subsequent
heating and cooling, hydrodynamic loading, and operational
conditions that change during the life of the hydrocarbon
reservoir.
For pipelines prone to lateral buckling, the one model approach
will allow efficient post start-up verification of a proposed
Buckle Management System and allow operations to have
confidence in the delivered solution.
In this paper, different scenarios for lateral buckling were
presented and simulated. Verification of buckling forces and
post-buckling configurations has been undertaken through
comparison with Hobbs and Kerr analytical models and
validated against ABAQUS.
REFERENCES
[1] Hobbs R.E., In-Service Buckling of Heated Pipelines,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 110(2), March
1984
[2] Hobbs R.E. and Liang F., Thermal Buckling of Pipelines
Close to Restraints, Proceedings of the 8th Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, OMAE,
1989
[3] Det Norske Veritas, Offshore Standard: Submarine
Pipeline Systems, DNV-OS-F101, October 2013
[4] Det Norske Veritas, Recommended Practice on Global
Buckling of Submarine Pipelines – Structural Design Due
to High Temperature and High Pressure, DNV-RP-F110,
October 2007
[5] Harrison G.E., Brunner M.S. and Bruton D.A.S., King
Flowlines: Thermal Expansion Design and
Implementation, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC-15310, May 2003
[6] Matheson I., Carr M., Peek R., Saunders P. and George N.,
Penguins Flowline Lateral Buckle Formation Analysis and
Verification, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, OMAE2004-51202, June 2004
[7] Kerr A.D., Analysis of Thermal Track Buckling in the
Lateral Plane, ACTA Mechanica, vol. 30
8 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
[8] Fyriliev O. and Collberg L., Influence of Pressure in
Pipeline Design – Effective Axial Force, Proceedings of
the 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2005-67502, June 2005
[9] Van den Abeele F. and Denis R., Numerical Modelling and
Analysis for Offshore Pipeline Design, Installation and
Operation, Journal of Pipeline Engineering, pp. 273-286,
Q4 2012
[10] Marley M., Merge between SAFEBUCK and DNV-RP-
F110 – Benefits and Challenges, AOG 2014, Perth,
Australia, February 2014
[11] Van den Abeele F., Boël F. and Hill M., Fatigue Analysis
of Free Spanning Pipelines subjected to Vortex Induced
Vibrations, Proceedings of the 32rd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE2013-10625 (2013)
[12] Van den Abeele F., Boël F. and Vanden Berghe, Structural
Reliability of Free Spanning Pipelines, Proceedings of the
10th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2014-33552
(2014)
[13] Ballard J.C., Van den Abeele F. and de Brier C., Influence
of Axial Pipe Soil Response on Pipeline End Expansion
and Walking, Proceedings of the 6th Pipeline Technology
Conference, Ostend, Belgium (2013)
[14] Birdas M., Srinil N. and Van den Abeele F., Assessment of
Pipeline Walking with Coupled Triggering Mechanisms by
Finite Element Approach, Proceedings of the 34 th
International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, OMAE2015-42101 (2015)
[15] Yonatan P.H., Van den Abeele F. and Ballard J.C.,
Numerical Simulation of Upheaval Buckling using
Intelligent Backfill Soil Springs, Offshore Pipeline
Technology Conference OPT2015, Amsterdam (2015)

9 Copyright © 2015 by ASME